OPINION & EDITORIAL
Claims won’t keep Adidas off my feet
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sean Kittridge:
- Claims won't keep Adidas off my feet (April 10, 2008)
- Tuned out: Merger spells end of radio (March 26, 2008)
- Tragedy can't be solved with ribbons (February 20, 2008)
- Hybrid SUVs drive U.S. into hypocrisy (February 6, 2008)
- Drug incarceration rates real buzz kill (December 11, 2007)
Related Stories:
- SLAC demands UW sever ties with Adidas (March 8, 2007)
- Kittridge claims careless (April 17, 2008)
- Be careful what you wish for, SLAC (April 12, 2007)
- UW: "Just do it" (November 4, 2003)
- Your Adidas smell... like oppression (September 25, 2007)
Share This:
by Sean Kittridge
Thursday, April 10, 2008
There was no feeling of guilt as I slid on my Adidas brand shoes this morning. Tying them — a skill I’ve only recently acquired — I didn’t stop once to think about the El Salvadorian child who labored over my cheap pieces of footwear. I guess I must be a monster. After all, these aren’t PF Fliers; they aren’t making me run faster or jump higher. These are just shoes. And I had the audacity to buy them from Adidas, a behemoth company screwing over its foreign employees. It’s not like I didn’t have options. Nikes were one aisle over, and the Reeboks were on sale.
Fortunately, the UW Labor Licensing Policy Committee is working hard to keep Adidas on the straight and narrow. As a major apparel sponsor, the company helps supply the university with necessities like athletic uniforms and shoes. But within the last two years, issues regarding the treatment of employees at a now-defunct textiles factory in El Salvador have led many to question the ethics behind our school’s agreement.
The company is said to, among many things, owe their former employees around $825,000 in pay and benefits, which is a big number to me, but hardly to Adidas. So why doesn’t Adidas just pony up and give people the money they’ve earned, especially when one of their 20 college partners has repeatedly expressed concerns? They haven’t paid because they don’t have to. As much as we’d like to moralize the situation, there is no feasible reason to abandon a company like Adidas for labor violations.
I am not trying to undermine the importance of labor laws. Groups from all along the political spectrum, from the Communist Party to the Catholic Social Teachings, express the importance of the worker. Heck, I wish we could set up a UW committee to investigate the way my mom made me clean as a child.
The University of Wisconsin faces the same problem. Sure, we could abandon our Adidas agreement, but one would be beyond foolish to assume companies like Nike, Reebok or Under Armour are giving their employees vacation time and Christmas bonuses. This is the nature of a very ugly business, and while reform is needed, it must come from a much bigger group than a licensing committee at a state university. Leaving Adidas won’t do us any good unless we find a viable alternative, and while there might be some free-trade, worker-conscious brand willing to step in, I don’t know of it. Besides, I don’t want to see the football team playing in hippie-hemp jerseys. They just don’t breathe well.
Those on the fringe would also suggest nothing will ever destroy a contract like the one between our Badgers and the Adidas people because of the money involved. Just like Coca-Cola and Pepsi engaging in bidding wars to supply a school, apparel companies will shell out some serious cash to have their insignia on a cardinal jersey. Even the shoes on the Barry Alvarez statue outside of Camp Randall are Adidas. Now maybe he really liked the shoes, or maybe the sculptor wanted to capture the essence of his feet, but it feels like a little much.
The University of Wisconsin should not allow itself to be represented by an organization refusing to pay its workers. It’s illegal, unethical and probably not good for karma. But abandoning Adidas will only result in acquiring a new contract with an equally shady company, and like rearranging the seat assignments on a prison bus, it’s not going to change anything. So the next time you put on sneakers with a big-time logo painstakingly sewn into the side by somebody half your age, don’t feel bad. “Just Do It.”
Sean Kittridge (kittridge@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 8:45am):
Really? Do you know how much Adidas needs Big 10 athletes to wear its shoes? A lot. Adidas might be big in Europe with the lawn ferries, but it's a small player in the US market. From personal experience, Adidas sneakers are inferior to most competitive brands; although, they usually are the most stylish (flamboyant) for non-athletic posers as yourself.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 9:27am):
Sean,
I understand that you are merely trying to be entertaining in your writing, but as a member of the LLPC, I feel I need to correct the serious flaws in your argument. And in the future, I would encourage you to contact myself or another committee member beforehand to get all the facts of the case.
First, adidas holds a contract (actually two, sponsorship and licensing) with the University of Wisconsin which requires all apparel and other licensed goods bearing the UW's logo to be produced under certain conditions. It is very clear to all of the members of the committee, students, faculty, and academic staff alike, that adidas was in material breach of contract: adidas pulled out production from the factory when its workers began to organize; and the workers only began to organize in response to sexual harassment, forced 15-hour shifts, and unsafe working conditions (for example, several workers have developed cancers from the machines). Instead of respecting freedom of association--which is a basic human right, according to the International Labor Organization and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights--adidas cut its own contract with the factory, and the factory closed. These workers are now blacklisted: they are virtually unhireable in El Salvador because they are recognized as "troublemakers." This isn't simply a matter of Christmas bonuses; according to the Workers Rights Consortium (of which the UW is a member), "the workers are owed $2,612.33 each, with individual totals ranging from $1,568.20 to $6,045.70," in back wages, severance, health care, and social security, which Salvadoran courts have maintained are legally owed to the workers. This is a lot of money for American workers to be shorted, imagine for Salvadoran workers, where the minimum wage in the maquila sector is less than $175 a month.
I'm sure you will agree that these conditions are shameful, and that the UW should do everything in its power to disassociate itself. Adidas is in breach of contract, and has adamantly made it clear that it will do nothing to bring its standards into compliance with the contract. To NOT cut the contract sends the message to all apparel producers associated with the UW that we do not care about the Codes of Conduct, and will tolerate sweatshop contracting.
Second, as Chancellor Wiley has made clear, the UW cannot field a naked football team. There are many ways to field a football team besides a sponsorship agreement with adidas. To be honest, there is not one "good" brand; but any brand could theoretically produce any good under satisfactory working conditions, without significantly raising the price. University Bookstore recently began selling fair trade tshirts, and they have become some of their most popular items, surpassing even the managers' sales expectations. In addition, these shirts cost much less than even sweatshop-made shirts of poorer quality. It is painfully obvious that exploitation is not necessary to keep prices down, and that there is a significant demand for fair trade apparel. Knights Apparel, the UW's second-largest licensee, will soon be switching some production to fair trade to meet the demand. Surely, if adidas were to value its relationship with the UW, adidas could make the Badgers the first major sports team in the country, if not in the world, to wear exclusively fair trade uniforms. Wouldn't that be an even better honor for the university that to get to the Sweet Sixteen, or the Outback Bowl? And it wouldn't be "hippie-hemp" either--the quality would be totally indistinguishable from what the athletes currently wear, except for the conditions under which they were made.
In regards to your comment about "rearranging the seats on a prison bus," you are partially correct, however, the UW has the power to choose the brand, and more importantly, to set the terms of the contract. The UW is a powerhouse school: few other schools are so good across the board. In terms of sheer apparel volume, it's one of the top schools in the country; and it's also THE fastest growing licensing school, due to tremendous work by Bo Ryan and Bret Bielema.
Now, there is one problem with everything I have just said. While brands have the ability to produce clothes and uniforms under good conditions, even profitably, they choose not to, even selectively. Why is that? Let's say we cut adidas and bring on Nike, and ask Nike to produce all UW uniforms and apparel under fair trade conditions. It would be profitable for Nike, to be sure. But they will likely balk. Why? Because it sets a "bad" example for them. Soon, other universities would request the same. And consumer groups and NGOs. They will of course still be profiting. Instead of returning half the cost of a tshirt to millionaire shareholders, it may instead be only one third. It's all about money. It's about doing everything they can to force out that extra penny of profits, even if it means locking workers in the factory, killing union leaders, forcing women to get abortions, or forcing 24 hour shifts without bathroom breaks (all of these are documented cases in textile factories). However, the UW has played a historic role in improving labor standards in factories producing Bucky shirts, and we have the power to condinue doing so.
As a public university, and one that takes such pride in its progressive history and "sifting and winnowing," it is unacceptable to be willfully complicit in such conditions. The committee will likely be recommending to Chancellor Wiley to terminate the contract with adidas. It remains to be seen whether he will listen to his advisers or listen to money, but the committee hopes that Wiley will do everything in his power to help push the industry, and the UW's reputation, forward.
John Bruning
UW Senior
Undergraduate Representative,
UW Labor Licensing Policy Committee
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 11:09am):
I love opinion articles, because you don't actually have to know anything to state an opinion.
Ammar Al Marzouqi (April 10, 2008 @ 12:25pm):
Well, I was going to write a response to your article. But I think John Bruning just gave you a metaphorical ass-whooping.
Next time, do your homework.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 12:52pm):
No one knows what catholic social teaching is, sean
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 1:36pm):
Your last statement doesn't make sense... the University shouldn't associate with companies with bad morals, but we should keep the deal with Adidas. A little contradictory? What I'm taking from your argument is that since we can't beat the bad guys, we should just give up and stand aside.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 2:20pm):
"Instead of respecting freedom of association... adidas cut its own contract with the factory, and the factory closed."
Yes, but freedom of association includes the right NOT to associate. I.e., it includes the right of Adidas to stop doing business with this factory.
"the workers are owed $2,612.33 each, with individual totals ranging from $1,568.20 to $6,045.70," in back wages, severance, health care, and social security"
It depends how these figures were determined. Were these funds actually earned during the time these individuals were employed or is the court deciding that Adidas should not have broken contract with the factory, and that's where the numbers are coming from.
Adidas is not obligated to hire these people if it doesn't like their demands.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 2:58pm):
wow, ignorant and sadly apathetic. just like the US and far too many young students to sit back and ignore these types of problems.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 6:36pm):
Wow. Shows what happens when you don't do your homework and half ass an article, Sean. Well done, John.
Anonymous (April 10, 2008 @ 7:30pm):
Responding to Anonymous @ 2:20
Adidas clearly has the right to not associate with any factory; however, choosing not to associate can have consequences. In this case, adidas broke the terms of its contract with the UW. The UW also has the freedom to no longer associate with adidas, especially when the contract is breached.
Those figures were calculated by the Workers Rights Consortium. To the best of my understanding, it was the amount that was contractually owed to the workers, which they never received. Nearly all of the $825,000 was embezzled by the factory owner. It is the sum of obligations through back wages, unpaid overtime, severance, production bonuses, and social security, which were accrued by workers while they were employed at Hermosa Manufacturing.
- John
Anonymous (April 11, 2008 @ 2:19pm):
7:30 - It is true that the UW has the right to not associate with Adidas. The question is: should they?
It is not clear to me that Adidas has breached contract either with the UW or with the factory. Did the contract say that Adidas must continue to do business with a factory despite its inability to provide a product at the cost Adidas wants? What did the contract specify? This is important.
It sounds like the factory is the guilty one, and Adidas is no longer doing business with them. Isn't that a good thing?
Anonymous (April 12, 2008 @ 10:24am):
The writer's dissing of hemp clothing is wrong too. Apparently he has not seen the latest in hemp clothing and hemp blends. It's not just for "hippies" anymore. Hemp is part of the solution to this planet's problems. Slave labor tennies are not.
Anonymous (April 13, 2008 @ 9:30pm):
I don't know much on the issue at hand, but is there a free trade alternative source? If there isn't actually one then I don't think that John and Sean really even disagree. The fact of the matter is that UW definitely should support better sources whenever it can, but if there isn't a better source then what is the difference between many evil labor abusing companies. I am in favor of someone hand sewing all the uniforms so as not to abuse any El Salvadorian laborers, but we need to find that someone first off.
Juana Maria Henriquez Garcia (April 14, 2008 @ 10:04am):
Wow, a journalism major!Didn't check his facts, didn't talk to the people he writes about, makes flippant and blatantly uninformed claims in a sarcastic yet whining tone. Well, I might just be a 42 year old lady living in El Salvador, but it burns my butt that someone like you is paying HOW MUCH????? for a university education in JOURNALISM? My life and my country aren't jokes to bantered about and then considered publishable. Geez.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 1:29pm):
Are your parents proud of you? Seriously. I would disown you if I knew you turned out to be so thoughless and incapable of taking the ramifications of your decisions into considersation before acting? Do you have a conscience? I think not.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
